About this Show

Piers Morgan Tonight

News/Business. (2011)

NETWORK
CNN

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Port 50000

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
mp2

PIXEL WIDTH
720

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Jeff Ashton 11, George Anthony 10, America 8, Dan Abrams 5, Dan 4, Us 4, Britain 3, Robin 3, Abc 2, Martha Stewart 2, Caylee 2, Florida 2, Mike Sitric 2, John 2, Michael Vick 2, Patsy Ramsey 2, O.j. Simpson 2, Salem 1, The Nation 1, Lynn 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CNN    Piers Morgan Tonight    News/Business.  (2011)  

    July 8, 2011
    12:00 - 1:00am PDT  

12:00am
>> hey, that's it for 360. thanks for watching. piers morgan starts now. six days until freedom. a judge throws the book at casey anthony, but with time served, she will two free next week. >> her release date has been calculated as july 13th, 2011. >> tonight, i'll ask the prosecutor what went wrong. >> in the real world, people within the their child to live. and casey clearly didn't. >> i'll ask the expert ifs the jury did the right thing. >> the jury wanted to say, show me, show me how she was killed. and show me the motive. why she was killed. >> and what happens to casey anthony now? this is a special edition of "piers morgan tonight."
12:01am
casey anthony will walk free next wednesday. today in court, the judge threw the book at her, sentencing her to four years for lying to police, the maximum sentence he could impose, but with time served, that comes out to just six more days in prison. it's the most controversial end to a murder trial since o.j. simpson, and understandably, all eyes are now on the jury. here's what one of those jurors told abc news about their decision. >> how did she die? if you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone or have something, where, when, why, how? those were important questions, they were not answered. i'm still confused. i have no idea what happened to that child. if you put even just the 12 jurors in one room with a piece of paper, write down how caylee died, nobody knows. we'd all be guessing. >> dan abrams, the founder of the website mediaaide.com, joins me wrong. dan, what's gone wrong here? if you ask a million people on the streets of america right
12:02am
now, i reckon a million people would say, this was the wrong verdict. >> i think it's the difference between objective truth and a legal truth, to some degree. meaning that i think that these jurors had to survive this enormous burden, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and apparently, they didn't think that that was survived. with that said, i have to say that these jurors do seem to have taken away something very different from this case than i think much of the public did. and that is, when you actually listen to everything that this woman just said, juror number three, what the alternate juror, number 14 has said, it sounds like they actually think that an accident may have been the cause of death, which i think is surprising, and i can't explain why their perception is so different than that of the public at large. >> i mean, a lot of people are going to feel pretty angry that
12:03am
casey anthony's going to walk out next wednesday, having effectively served her time, when you still have so many unanswered questions about what happened to her daughter. >> no question. people say, what about justice for caylee? and the answer is, if this wasn't a crime, meaning, if it was an accident, then the sort of justice for caylee is going to have to simply be in the minds and hearts of those who cared about her. it seems that these jurors gave the defense's theories more credence than did the public at large. for example, that juror you just showed there said that she thought that it was probably the case that george anthony, the father knew more about what was happening here. she thinks he was there, is what she said. there was no evidence to suggest that. i mean, there was the defense's assertion in the opening statement. that's what jose baez said, but when it came to proof, any piece
12:04am
of evidence that george anthony was there at the time, there was nothing. it seems that what happened is that these jurors watched a witness like george anthony, and they simply didn't trust him. and as a result, some of the speculative theories that the defense posed became sort of engrained in the minds of these jurors, so it was at the very least reasonable doubt. >> i mean, what was interesting to me was judge perry gave out the maximum sentence that he could for the offenses for which he was convicted. if that happened in a british courtroom, i think the media in britain would assume that that meant he felt that she was probably guilty of other offenses. is it similar in america in that sense? i mean wob would you assume with your legal brain that he was making a point there? >> i think he might be. it's tough to know. this was certainly, remember, the crimes here we're talking
12:05am
about are lying to the authorities, and these were pretty egregious. meaning she did send the authorities on a wild goose chase, which is a horrible thing to do, and as a result, you could make an argument that it deserved the maximum punishment. but i agree with you, that i think there's something more at play here, for this judge to give the maximum, meaning a year on each of the four counts, and then say she has to serve them consecutively, one after the other, is a very stiff sentence for this crime. >> yeah. and i think quite telling. i'm about to interview the prosecutor, jeff ashton, who was pretty shocked by what happened. if you were about to talk to him, dan, what would you say to him? >> i guess one of the things i would want to know is the george anthony factor, the father. is he particularly surprised that these jurors had real
12:06am
questions about the credibility of george anthony? i think that the prosecutors and myself as well may have underestimated how much the jurors distrusted george anthony's testimony. also, with regard to not just cause of death, meaning cause of death was always a problem for them, but it seemed these jurors wanted a motive. and the prosecutors offered a motive. and they didn't buy it. i mean, these jurors completely rejected -- for that juror that we just watched to say, we don't know why she would have done it. well, the prosecutors would say, we offered up a theory as to why. we said that it was pretty clear that she wanted to move on with her life, didn't want to be saddled with a child. she wanted to go out and party, she wanted to have her boyfriends, et cetera. this juror is talking as if the prosecutors didn't present any evidence of a possible motive. >> yeah, i think you made some good points there. dan, if you can hang around, i'm now going to jeff ashton and i want to hear what you think about his answers. i'll come back to you in a moment. the lead prosecutor in the casey
12:07am
anthony case says he is shocked and stunned. jeff ashton poured three years of his life into this trial, and now he's ending his career. jeff ashton, were you going to retire anyway, or has this kind of put you off the justice system? >> no, it was planned anyway. i've done 30 years as a prosecutor and it has always been any intention to leave when this case was over. in fact win sort of extended my retirement a bit to finish this case. so it was always my intention to do that. >> i mean, obviously, when you lose a case and there is a public presumption, as there was, that you're going to win, it's a pretty cataclysmic moment for you as a prosecutor. you couldn't have seen this coming, just based on the buzz that surrounded the trial. what was your reaction when you realized it had gone the wrong way? >> well, i think the reaction of all of us we were pretty shocked, as everyone else was, but, you know, all of us have been doing this long enough to know that anytime you have a jury making a decision, you just
12:08am
never know what they're going to do. so while we were shocked, we walked away, basically saying, well, that's the way the system works. we gave the evidence to the jury, we gave them every bit of evidence that we had. we felt we did it in a very coherent manner, made good arguments. and if they chose to find her not guilty, then that's their right. >> i mean, when a jury finds a defendant like casey anthony not guilty, it's because they haven't believed, really, the thread in narrative of the prosecution. i think we have to assume that. looking back on the way the trial went, where do you think you made mistakes? i spoke to dan abrams, he was saying that maybe he underestimated the lack of credibility of george anthony in particular. would you accept that? >> well, i think if this jury, you know, came to the verdict they did based upon the belief in something that wasn't in evidence.
12:09am
in other words, if they came to this decision based upon the believe that george anthony had something to do with this, then they didn't do the right thing. because there was no evidence that george was involved in this. and they were instructed that their decision, reasonable doubts had to come from the evidence. so if, in fact, that was the factor, then they didn't do their jobs. i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. i'm assuming that they simply did it based upon, you know, not being convinced about cause of death, and that's fine. if they did not see in the photographs of how caylee was found what we saw, and what other people see, well, that's fine. you know, we shall agree to disagree. but if they did it based upon the allegation that george is involved, that is a more serious breach of their duty as a juror. >> i mean, do you believe absolutely that she murdered her daughter? or is it more realistic that there was some terrible accident, possibly as a result of negligence, which she then
12:10am
covered up? what is the more likely premise? now that this is all over, do you think? >> sure. i just, i have never been able to figure out a reason why somebody would cover up an accident by putting three pieces of duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child, and then dumping them in a swamp. i mean, when children die by accident, people call for help. that's how it works, in the real world. you know, in the fictional world, that may be different. but in the real world, people want their child to live. and casey clearly didn't. every action that she took showed that. but the evidence was what it was. >> i mean, look, i don't want to be asterical, as others have been about this. it's important to remain fair minded and respect the judicial process, and i think that is important, going forward, that we have to do that. but when i studied the facts of
12:11am
this case, when you see, repeatedly, people saying, why would any woman, any mother not report the missing child for 31 days, i mean, you're left with some pretty inescapable conclusions, aren't you? i just don't know anybody in that position that would not report their child going missing for that long. >> i think that was our point all throughout the case, is, you know, how do you explain that? and, you know, we felt that that was fairly compelling information. i don't want know how compelling the jurors thought it was, or what explanation they drew for it. but we felt that was pretty difficult to understand, by anything other than her being involved in the murder. >> jeff ashton, stand there for a moment. we're going to take a short break. when we come back, i want to talk to you, really, about the sentencing that went on today and the fact that casey anthony will be walking free next wednesday. >> will do.
12:12am
12:13am
12:14am
announcer: when life's this hard, it's no wonder 7,000 students drop out every school day. visit boostup.org and help kids in your community stay in school. a judge slammed casey
12:15am
anthony with a four-year sentence, but with time served, she'll walk in just six days. perhaps no one is more stunned by this outcome than the lead prosecutor in this case, jeff ashton. and jeff is still with me now. jeff, when you heard about the sentencing, it seemed to me, and i'm not a legal expert, that the judge was making a point by giving her the absolute maximum that he could for the comparatively trivial crimes for which she was convicted. would you concur with that? >> well, i don't think that the sentence necessarily is a comment on how the judge felt about the more serious charges. clearly, though the crimes were misdemeanors, the effect that these misdemeanors had on law enforcement, on the community were incredible. i mean, the hundreds of thousands of hours, thousands of dollars, the hours of civilians' -- i mean, these lies created a havoc in this community and pain for months.
12:16am
so even without the murder, i still think the judge's sentence is very, very appropriate. >> i want to play you another clip from one of the jurors and get your reaction to this, jeff, if you don't mind. >> there wasn't enough evidence. there wasn't anything strong enough to say exactly -- i don't think anyone in america could tell us exactly how she died. if you put even just the 12 jurors in a room with a piece of paper and tell us how caylee died, we don't know. we'd all be guessing. we have no idea. >> jeff, she has a point. if i asked all my staff on "piers morgan tonight" to say what actually happened and how she died, i think you would get a variable responses. was that the key problem here, that the forensic evidence just wasn't there for you to get a conviction? >> you know, obviously, we thought the forensic evidence was this to establish her guilt of first-degree murder. as we explained to the jury through the jury instructions, that verdict can come from any number of different scenarios of how caylee was killed.
12:17am
there are, you know, accidental scenarios that would be first-degree murder. there are accidental scenarios that would be aggravated manslaughter. but we felt there was sufficient evidence to show that this was a criminal homicide. we felt first-degree murder. but certainly, we felt there was enough to show that it was criminal in nature. in fact, that was the testimony of the medical examiner, that this was a homicide, it was not an accident. but the jury, you know, is aware of the evidence. they're the ones that get to decide. and if they don't see in the evidence what we do, we have to respect that. as you said. >> i mean, do you feel comfortable that someone who is a, clearly a pathological liar, who was an appallingly negligent mother, if nothing else, clearly not, in my view, in any fit mental state, do you feel comfortable that someone like that will be walking the streets of america in a few days' time?
12:18am
>> you know, we did what we could to prevent that, but the jury spoke and i believe the judge gave her the maximum sentence that he could. i just hope that people react in this -- to this release by ignoring her. the best thing they could do to express their disgust to casey anthony is to ignore her. don't go to the jail when she's released, turn your back on her, just ignore her, pretend that she doesn't exist, because that's the way you can respond to her the best. >> jeff ashton, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> i'm going to turn back to dan abrams. dan, you heard jeff ashton there, clearly very disappointed about the result there. he's not the only ones. millions of americans share his sense of dismay that justice for caylee anthony, at the very least, doesn't seem to have been done here. what do you think about what he said? >> most of the people that watched this case thought that jeff ashton did a very good job as a prosecutor.
12:19am
and i don't always say that in the context of high-profile cases. i think he really was a very strong prosecutor who presented a very strong case. so you can understand why he is frustrated. i mean, you know, the problem is, when you start talking about george anthony, for example, and he says, well, it would be improper for the jurors to have concluded something that wasn't in evidence. maybe. but as he well knows, that's not the way juries work all the time. meaning that if jurors see on the witness stand someone they don't believe, that's a problem. and again, i admit that i misread this, because i thought it was foolish for the defense in its opening statement to spend so much time pointing the finger at george anthony. but i'll tell you, from listening to juror number three, it seems that had an impact. it seems that these jurors looked very critically at george anthony. and you also heard this issue of
12:20am
the juror talking about, we don't know exactly how she died, and you heard jeff ashton there, again, seemingly frustrated, because he felt that they demonstrated that, but there have been other cases, the high-profile scott peterson case, for example, we didn't know exactly how laci peterson died, and yet the jurors expected that there was this avalanche of circumstantial evidence that together demonstrated he did it, even though we didn't know exactly how he did it. in this case, the jurors didn't feel that there was enough there to convict. >> yeah. it's a fascinating case. and remains so, despite this very controversial verdict. i want to bring in judge seidlin now, and ask you, judge, what you thought of the sentencing today, in particular. >> i thought that the judge, this judge seemed to be stayed oriented, prosecution oriented,
12:21am
and i believed that this judge would give the defendant, casey, the maximum sentence, and hammer her. and he did. he was left with the misdemeanors and he could give each misdemeanor one year, and he could give it consecutively. normally it would be concurrent. but he felt that the jury spoke clearly and loudly that she was not guilty of any form of homicide, and she was guilty of the four misdemeanors. and the judge sat through this trial, and he felt that the punishment fit the facts of the case. >> when you say that, it seemed to me that what he was really saying was that he did not really agree with this verdict, that he felt that there was probably enough evidence for at least one of the other charges to come back in. i mean, why else would he throw the book at her in that way? it was the most sen soirs sentence he could have imposed? >> well, piers, i happen to agree with you.
12:22am
i sensed even during the trial that this judge was very prosecution oriented. during very important junctures in the trial. and he could have released her right at the end of the trial, when the jury came back with not guilty on the homicide charges. and could have said, you're released from this courtroom, and had her come back for sentencing for the misdemeanors. he was involved in a case, he knows the facts, and i believe, and i said it before the trial and during the trial, i was probably the only voice in america that said, there's not enough evidence to prove her guilty of these heinous crimes. and the jury just was not convinced. even though we're all sickened by the death of caylee, there was nothing linking her death with the defendant.
12:23am
of course, there was the missing 31 days where she didn't call the police. and that was an aberration. that was just an outrageous act. but they didn't show the method of her death. there was so many elements missing, and they were uncomfortable. this is not a multiple question. pick a, b, c, or d. the jury wanted to say "show me." show me how she was killed and show me the motive, why she was killed. and it didn't add up and if i sat as a judge, if it was a judge trial, i may have come back with the same verdict. i think there was doubt by every educated legal mind in america. and what happened is, you have talking heads around the country that weren't really familiar with homicide cases. they may have handled reckless driving or civil cases. so you heard a drum beat. and they were informing america of her guilt of murder one. and it was unfair to the american public, this drum beat. it was like the old salem witch hunt. without proof, you can't put
12:24am
someone to death. and that's what we were lacking here. we needed more educated, insightful voices, that understood the criminal process. to say she isn't going to be convicted. all you heard on every tv station was they're going to come back with murder one. and it just wasn't true. >> casey anthony was found guilty by the court of the media and public opinion, driven in my opinion, a lot by the fact that this case was televised, which we don't do, for instance, in britain. i think it fueled the wrong kind of atmosphere about this, made her a hate figure, and that actually, as you said, if you studied the hard evidence, very, very difficult to criticize the jury for being unable to convict on the charges that were presented to them. >> i think the talking heads should not criticize the jury. they performed a public service. they spent days and days away from their home and family.
12:25am
and to criticize them is unfair. they did what they thought was right. and to criticize the judge or the other folks in this case is underminding our legal system. and you know we adopted our legal system from great britain. and we do allow cameras in a courtroom. the state of florida does. and it's a two-edged sword. it sometimes is just absolutely unfair to the defendant, because it doesn't give the defendant an even playing field. >> thank you very much for your time, and also to dan abrams. the case closed on casey anthony, or is it? the court of public opinion remains firmly and vociferousl in session. two legal experts after the break.
12:26am
12:27am
12:28am
12:29am
at this time, i would like to announce that the defendant was given credit for 1,043 days, and at this time, her release date has been calculated as july 13th, 2011. >> casey anthony's just a few more days to spend in jail, but the debate over whether the prosecution failed to prove
12:30am
their case against her isn't going to end anytime soon. could she actually be innocent? joining me now are two lawyers who specialize in sex crimes and child abuse cases. stacey honowitz, a florida state prosecutor, and robin saks, a former los angeles prosecutor. stacey, people are talking about it as being the biggest upset for a prosecution team since o.j. simpson. is that fair, do you think? >> i absolutely think it's fair. and these prosecutors, unfortunately, it's interesting you go on the next day and you talk about it, and i give him so much credit. because even many small cases, when you lose something that involves a child or any case, you have to live with that and it resonates in your brain, day after day. what did i do wrong, what could i have done? in a case of this magnitude, when the entire world is watching, where it's an upsetting and shocking verdict, this is something they will live with. what did i fail to do? which in my mind, they didn't fail to do anything. they presented an airtight brilliant case. but they have to live with whether or not the closing argument they presented, could their forensics have been better?
12:31am
and quite frankly, you have to respect the jury, i don't agree wit, but that's the system that we do have. but i feel for them, because it's an awful position to be in. >> i mean, the one criticism that i've heard about the prosecution is that they've overcharged. that actually by pushing for murder one with the death penalty as a possible consequence, it sort of unnerved the jury into making this decision, because they didn't want to go that far. should they have charged on slightly lesser charges, do you think, or not? >> i don't think they should. they had the evidence in front of them. you heard jeff ashton talk about the three pieces of duct tape, the chloroform. i mean, everybody saw this evidence, circumstantial, people are saying. it's circumstantial. well, circumstantial evidence is as powerful as direct evidence. it's a series of circumstances that lead you to the belief that this person committed the crime. so while they charge first-degree premeditated
12:32am
murder, the jurors had options. it's my belief that they went back there and they didn't believe any involvement, like dan abrams had. they believed the defense's theory. because if they believed she had some involvement, there would have been a conviction on child abuse or aggravated manslaughter, something to prove she had an involvement in this case, and they didn't buy any of it. >> robin? >> i think there was a potential for overcharging. even us legal pundits weren't quite sure if this was a first-degree or was this an accident? that was the hard part of this case that resonated through. but the key problem here, this is the case for professional juries, if i've ever seen it. that same sick feeling that they don't get the law. circumstantial evidence is as good of evidence as any. short of having a video camera, we have to put things together based on stringing evidence, connecting dots. and that juror number 3 that you
12:33am
had on earlier today also made the comment she didn't think they should have to go through the work of connecting the dots. that's exactly what they're supposed to do. if they don't know what they're supposed to do, then there is a problem with our jurors. >> yeah, i mean, what i found baffling was that they seem to be reacting very emotionally, these jurors, as if to say, hey, don't blame us, this was a terrible ordeal. and yet after the whole trial, they dispend 11 or 12 hours deliberating, they don't ask a single follow-up question about anything on a case of a lot of complexity, a lot of unanswered questions, not one question do they come back with in their deliberations? i found that extraordinary. >> i agree with you. if they had so many questions, why don't they start asking them. that's what we heard them say, we had so ma questions, we didn't know many things. >> they don't want to know. i think the important thing is, jurors have to know what the lawyers say is not evidence. and i think in this case, they took it as that. and i also think that in reasonable doubt, in trying cases over 24 years, you know, reasonable doubt is a hard
12:34am
concept. i think jurors believe that the case has to be proven 100% beyond all doubt. the only time you never have a doubt in this case is if you were present, if you were there, and they're not. it's reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt, in trying cases over 24 years, you know, reasonable doubt is a hard concept. i think jurors believe that the case has to be proven 100% beyond all doubt. the only time you never have a doubt in this case is if you were present, if you were there, and they're not. it's reasonable doubt. >> it seems to my, robin, that the american public, many of whom have watched every second of this trial. people have been obsessive about it, but i haven't met anybody who doesn't think that she was responsible for the death of her daughter. what nobody is sure about is exactly how caylee died. everybody seems unanimous that casey anthony was responsible for the death of her child. and i can keep coming back to
12:35am
some extraordinary facts. i mean, the fact that a mother doesn't report her child missing for 31 days? i mean, that alone to me is appalling negligence and incredibly suspicious. >> absolutely. and the evidence with each lie, which they convicted her of the evidence of lying, so how could they trust any other theory coming out of there, when they've made the conviction that she's lied. there are so many pieces of damning evidence, but the fact of the matter is, i think for a jury with this problem of reasonable doubt, exactly what stacey says, i think short of having 100% proof, they weren't going to find her guilty. it's really hard without knowing the cause of death. and if you're looking for reasonable doubt, a jury will always find it, and it seems that they made the decision from the beginning that they were going to find her not guilty and they were going to find reasonable doubt, no matter where. >> i would like to ask you both, really, what your gut feeling is. do you think that she was guilty of murder or guilty of manslaughter in some way? let me ask you first, stacey?
12:36am
>> i believe she was guilty of murder. i believe in the prosecution's evidence. i believe in the three pieces of duct tape. what other reason do you duct tape a baby over their nasal passages and over their mouth, other than to kill them? so i totally believe it was premeditated first-degree murder. >> robin? >> i don't necessarily agree that it's first-degree murder. i definitely think she's responsible for the death of this child. i don't know if she died from the actual duct tape or didn't die, how the chloroform played it out. but if i were the prosecutor in this case, i would have examined both scenarios, and not have put all my eggs in this one basket, because this was a risky basket to go to, especially with the consequences of death. >> ladies, thank you very much, indeed. casey anthony will soon be free from jail, but will she ever be free from the speculation, the scorn, and the inevitable media frenzy that will now surround her? my next guest helped michael vick and martha stewart adjust to life outside prison. he'll give his insight, coming up.
12:37am
12:38am
any questions? no. you know... ♪ we're not magicians ♪ we can't read your mind ♪ ♪ read your mind ♪ we need your questions ♪ each and every kind ♪ every kind ♪ will this react with my other medicine? ♪ ♪ hey, what are all these tests even for? ♪ ♪ questions are the answer
12:39am
♪ yeah ♪ oh
12:40am
casey anthony from murder defendant to media magnet. will she cash in on her sudden
12:41am
celebrity once she's free? or will she go into hiding and try to put her past behind her? let's get some insight from herb halter, celebrity attorney lynn wood, and mike sitric. his clients include michael vick and martha stewart. paul, were you surprised by how quickly casey anthony's being set free? >> no, not at all, given the good time laws and the way that most states work in releasing prisoners, i'm not surprised at all. >> well, will she have any restrictions on her when she walks throughgates out of prison? >> that was a surprising part for me. i would have sentenced her differently. i would have sentenced her probably more controversial, but probably three years, and placed her on a period of supervised probation with strict conditions. but as the sentence is imposed now, there's no supervised release, there's no parole, there's no probation, so she'll be walking the streets free and clean. >> let me turn to you, lynn wood.
12:42am
you were a lawyer in the jonbenet ramsey case, so you're used to this kind of high-profile media circus trial. what did you make of the events of the last 48 hours? >> i can tell you that i'm aware of the fact that this young lady was, in effect, tried in the court of public opinion, long before the actual trial took place. and i actually am glad that the public had a chance to watch the trial itself, so that they could see the difference between some of the sensational false information that you hear in the media, they could see the actual evidence presented, and they could reach their own conclusion as to this young lady's guilt or innocence. they may disagree with the verdict, but i hope that they respect the process. it's a difficult burden to meet in a criminal case, and rightfully so, because we're talking about someone's freedom, in some instances, someone's life. >> i mean, lynn, john and patsy ramsey, who were two clients of
12:43am
yours, they were hated by their communities, and yet they ended up not being charged with any offenses. and so were innocent people. how were their lives able to rebuild after all that? >> they never really were able to recover from what happened to them. you have to remember that first and foremost, john and patsy ramsey lost a child. they were then subjected to an incompetent investigation in boulder, colorado, and then for many years, they were vilified by the media with false accusations, which we now know, since their exoneration, were, in fact, false. i often wondered, piers, how they could handle it with such dignity and grace and perseverance and courage, and i can tell you how they did it. they did it because they had a strong system of loving family members and loyal friends. they had a deep religious faith and conviction. and they had the reality that they had the responsibility to
12:44am
still raise their son, burke, who was 9 years old when he lost his life's best friend, his sister. and that combination, i believe, allowed them to survive it. whether this young lady will have that type of support system and be able to overcome what she's gone through in terms of the media and the actual trial, only time will tell. >> let me bring in mike sitric here. you've wrecked everyone from rush limbaugh to paris hilton, high-profile individuals who have gone through major crisis in their lives. what do you think is the best advice now for casey anthony? should she go the whole hog? change her appearance, dye her hair, disappear, or would you confront this? come out, do interviews, continue to protest your innocence? what would you do? >> look, this is a perfect example, this case, of while you're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, you're guilty until proven innocent in the media.
12:45am
and what we have done, when we represent clients, first of all, we have to determine that they really are innocent. but i think she needs to give it a little time, give it a little space. and i would do an interview, assuming that she is innocent, and i would do one television interview, have her sit down with you, for example, and let the public hear from her, in her voice, what happened here. and i wouldn't sell the interview. i think that's a mistake. because it looks like you're capitalizing on it. if she really does want to bring back her life. then after she does that and establishes it, she could go on. look, the jurors have been interviewed on television. they have said, at least one of the jurors i recently heard, i heard on cnn, and saw on cnn, said, look, i don't know whether she drowned -- whether the baby
12:46am
drowned or she was killed, there was an -- they all said there wasn't enough evidence to convict. and the public has been getting the information filtered through the media. those that didn't watch every twist and turn in the trial. so i think that she can take advantage of the fact that the public doesn't know. it was harry truman who said, if you can't convince them, confuse them. the public was confused. and i think somebody is going to -- a void is going to be filled whether it's by pundits or whether it's by people speculating, and the only way this she can resurrect herself in my view is to tell the story herself. >> i mean, one of the problems, of course, with having all this on television, the trial, is everyone involved becomes a de facto celebrity. and she is bound to get offered multimillion dollar offers from all sorts of different commercial entities, trying to capitalize on the fact that she
12:47am
has basically walked free, and is one of the most contentious figures in american public life. i mean, i have quite a firm view about this. this child by television is deeply flawed. i don't see the upside of it, other than it turns the whole thing into a reality tv circus. >> well, look, i think that what has happened here is it has become a circus and that's part of the problem that she faces. and people are judging her. she has, i'm sure, followed the advice of her attorneys and not spoken. and i think there has -- time has to go by. one of the things she has to worry about is that public opinion has been so solidified against her that she has to worry about her own safety. and there will be plenty of time to capitalize on this in the future. there'll be plenty of time to capitalize this financially, but i first think she has to restore her image by telling what happened, and she can say, look,
12:48am
the hardest thing in the world is losing your child, assuming that she feels this way. the hardest thing in the world is losing your child. i love my child. i would never do anything to hurt my child. but to have to sit in court and hear yourself accused of killing your child, it is the worst torture any parent could ever imagine. if she says that and means that, and i think that she can make some inroads. >> well, mike, lin, thank you all very much. the drama isn't over yet for casey anthony. she will walk out of jail next week, but what happens when she leaves? will her parents let her back home or ever talk to her again? up next, we'll talk to somebody who has been covering this case from the very beginning.
12:49am
12:50am
12:51am
12:52am
casey anthony, the most notorious woman in america right now. she's free from prison in less than a week. but what happens when she returns to her community? what about her parents? could she ever go back home? the more we turn to abc correspondent ashley banfield who's been following the case since the very beginning. ashley, what a mess really all
12:53am
around, isn't it, for everyone? i mean, no justice for caylee anthony and i would imagine no hope of any kind of normal relationship again between the daughter and the parents in this case. would you agree? >> i think it's a very complex family relationship. they're certainly not intimating whether they're going to be welcoming her back with open arms. but let's not forget, the sordid accusations that casey levelled against her brother, her father, and piers, also her mom. because she effectively blamed her mother for her daughter's death, saying she left the ladder up in the pool in which casey drowned. so that's a pretty ugly family dinner. whether she goes there or whether she finds some quiet time with an attorney until she can get herself settled an maybe not even here or in this country is still the $64,000 question. >> tell me, asche lee, you were there the whole time, can you give me any convincing excuse for why any mother would not report her child missing for 31 days?
12:54am
anything that makes any kind of sense? unless you are theperson who knows exactly what's happened to her? >> well, all i can tell you is what all the arm chair quarterbacks have said over the last three years. that is this. perhaps a young, immature, 22-year-old mother who has an accident that results in death loses it. tries to cover it up. perhaps this is a woman who actually did kill her daughter. perhaps it was a drowning in the pool. perhaps casey's story is true. it all seems like the mystery that has propelled this story not unlike a "new york times" best seller. "the da vinci code." why does a story like that, why does a mystery like that grip the nation? this one's real. that's all i can suggest is there are so many scenarios that could have played out here, piers. and we all know how good a liar
12:55am
casey is admittedly. we'll never know the truth. even if she stands up and yells it from the courthouse steps. >> i mean, what is your gut instinct? you were there the whole time. you heard all the evidence. you're an experienced journalist. what does your gut tell you about this? >> i think my gut tells me what it's been telling me for the last 250 or so trials that i've covered. that is this. it is a very different aspect from a jury box. television doesn't cut it. as good as i like to think i am at my job, it's different when you're a juror. and they take their job very seriously. and i think anybody who calls these people out and tells them that there's no justice in this case is not being fair. just because we don't get a result we like does not mean justice didn't prevail. i like to say that nobody showed up at someone's house and hooded them and took them away for six months without telling anybody where they were. that's the way it works in other countries. not the way it works here. justice was carried out. if you're casey's supporters or her family, justice was that caylee's mother didn't get put to death. it's a hard concept to wrap your
12:56am
arms around if you believe that she killed her daughter. but this jury didn't find the definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and everybody's reasonability is a little bit different. >> ashleigh banfield, thank you very much indeed. we'll be right back after this short break.an rchitect. our boy's a genius. we are awesome parents! biddly-boop. [ male announcer ] if you find a lower rate on a room you've booked, we won't just match it. we'll give you $50 towards your next trip. [ gnome ] it's go time. who needll give you $50 towards your next trip. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need.
12:57am
i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today.
12:58am
12:59am